PDA

View Full Version : Some Christians Never Give Up...lol


vinnieponte
02-17-2005, 05:13 PM
NOW REMMEMBER EVERYONE, I'M SAYINS "SOME". THAT WAY I WONT HAVE EVERYONE FREAKING OUT AND CRYING OVER ME PUTTING CHRISTIANS IN THE TITLE.

Philadelphia Judge Clears Anti-Gay Group of Hate Crimes

2 hours, 33 minutes ago U.S. National - Reuters


By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A judge dismissed charges on Thursday against four anti-gay Christians accused of violating hate crime laws when protesting at a gay street festival, saying free speech rights allowed them to do so.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe said the four members of "Repent America" exercised their right to free speech when they refused to move away from the city's gay pride "Outfest" last October.

The protesters used bullhorns and placards to warn festival participants that they would suffer eternal damnation for their homosexual behavior. After a noisy, nonviolent confrontation with gay people, they were charged with incitement to riot, and violating a 1982 Pennsylvania law that bars inciting hatred on the basis of race, color, religion, nationality or sexuality.

"You cannot stifle free speech because you don't want to hear it," Dembe said. "Many of these messages may be repulsive and offensive but people are allowed to make them.

The right to free speech extends to neo-Nazis marching in towns where Holocaust survivors live and to the Ku Klux Klan, the judge told a packed courtroom.

The leader of the group, Michael Marcavage, 25, said after the ruling that he felt vindicated.

"It's a good thing to know that there are still some judges who respect the First Amendment," he said, adding that his group plans to protest another local gay rally on May 1.

He then quoted a passage from Leviticus saying that homosexuals "should surely be put to death." But he denied a claim by the Philadelphia Gay Pride organization that he had suggested gays should be killed.

Assistant District Attorney Charles Ehrlich said after the ruling that free speech was not the most important issue in the case. The defendants had been charged because of their disruption of the gay event and for their conduct, not because of their statements, he said. Ehrlich said he would decide within 30 days whether to appeal.

The other defendants were Dennis Green, 38, of Petersburg, Virginia; James Cruise, 53, of Richmond, Virginia; and Mark Diener, 33, of Philadelphia. Eleven protesters were initially charged but charges were dropped against six. After the ruling, charges against the remaining defendant, a 17-year-old, will be dropped, defense attorney Scott Shields said.

FishForLunch
02-17-2005, 09:52 PM
Most liberals think America is evil.

Drbio
02-17-2005, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Most liberals think America is evil.

I think it plays to cowardice as well.

vinnieponte
02-18-2005, 10:37 AM
freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying

capitalcity
02-18-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying
Freedom of civil union, what's wrong with that?

Mavdog
02-18-2005, 11:49 AM
First, I want to say these two should be allowed to exercise their right of free speech, although there should be restrictions on the use of bull horns (noise) or if they urged physical atacks on homosexuals (incitement).

Civil Unions do not bestow the same rights and benefits as marriage currently does. Unless there is equality there is discrimination, civil unions do not reach the goal of equality for all Americans.

Equal rights. period. There is absolutely no justification for denying any citizens equality merely because of their sexual orientation.

capitalcity
02-18-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
First, I want to say these two should be allowed to exercise their right of free speech, although there should be restrictions on the use of bull horns (noise) or if they urged physical atacks on homosexuals (incitement).

Civil Unions do not bestow the same rights and benefits as marriage currently does. Unless there is equality there is discrimination, civil unions do not reach the goal of equality for all Americans.

Equal rights. period. There is absolutely no justification for denying any citizens equality merely because of their sexual orientation.

Amend the laws so that marriage is a protected institution for man and wife.
Amend the laws so that civil unions bestow the same rights as marriage.

Everyone wins.

vinnieponte
02-18-2005, 01:16 PM
Is it 1948? Back of the bus mentality? Different water fountains? Have we come this far just to find new classes to show prejudice and deny marriage to loving couples? Marriage should be the same across the board, not this group or that group, just 2 people united as one.

capitalcity
02-18-2005, 02:15 PM
All commited loving couples should be treated equally: healthcare, tax benefits, adoption rights, etc.

With a lawfully-endowed equivalent, there is no predjudice is trying to preserve the sacred unity of Man and Woman.

Therefore we should adapt civil unions to include all the rights of marriage. Why redefine traditional marriage when there is already an institution set aside for non-traditional couples?
(edit spelling)

Rhylan
02-18-2005, 02:24 PM
Alright, sick of hearing about this topic..... guess what folks.. marriage is not a right. Equal protection shouldn't apply. Benefits for married couples are inherently arbitrary, and as a result, I don't see how you can impose the 'equal rights' argument, without having to extend it to single people and polygamists!

One of the biggest arguments on the side of gay marriage is the spousal benefits argument.. which really is pretty valid in a lot of ways. I support civil unions, personally. But even so, let's say my buddy and I are both self employed.. say he's an electrician, and I'm a plumber.

Let's say my wife works for a company that provides health benefits, and he's not married. I get to insure myself based on spousal benefits from my wife's job, and he has to have a personal policy. Now, how is that fair? What if he wants to be married but women can't stand him? That is no more a choice that he can control than is the argument from gay people that they can't help who they love. My electrician buddy can't help who DOESN'T love him! i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

get it?

Seems to me that the concept of benefits for married couples is neither fair nor equal.. the fact that the benefits even exist is a product of our prevailing culture.. a Judeo-Christian one, by the way.

Just an outside the box thought.

edit, 'cause I'm hooked on phonics.

vinnieponte
02-18-2005, 03:59 PM
Rylan, I understand your taught process however, the issue is this: Certain people (meaning most republicans & religious types) are against any form of same sex marriage. They have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it. Hell I hate ugly women, but you dont see me trying to pass a law saying ugly women must go to " certain clubs" and not allow them to regualr night clubs. Get it

Usually Lurkin
02-18-2005, 05:37 PM
vinnie, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere.
cousins, siblings, polygamy, different species, minors,

how do you make the decision who should or should not be able to get married?

Rhylan
02-18-2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by: vinnieponteThey have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it.

Vinnie, my point is this - maybe you CAN pass a law restricting marriage, since it's not an inherent human right, as "proven" by my previous statements. If marriage is a right, then where's my wife?

If you go so far as to say that it's not an individual's right to be married, but it is a couple's right to get married, then I can see the logic. However, if "all committed, loving couples should be treated equally," as capitalcity said, then what prevents me and Jane from getting married.. followed soon after by me and Suzy getting married.. followed soon after by Jane and Suzy getting married. And there, my friend, you have polygamy, which is against the law, and nobody's crying for it.

So, the line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously. Even those of you who fully support gay marriage and not just civil unions are drawing a line at being in multiple marriages at one time. And that proves my point - marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege. It's a social institution that is purely cultural and/or religious in nature. The only reason marriage has any place in our government/employment/etc is because it is such a primary part of our culture and/or religion, and as such, the prevailing beliefs of our culture and/or religion will continue to legally define it.

And the prevailing beliefs of American culture say that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman. Like it or not. Again, I think we ought to allow civil unions so that gay couples can have the same institutional advantages as married couples. However, I don't expect the societal definition of "marriage" to change any time soon, because the prominence of marriage in America is rooted in our "socio-cultur-religious" beliefs, which generally do not accept same sex marriages.

Rhylan
02-18-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkinhow do you make the decision who should or should not be able to get married?

Ideally, no one would make the decision, and our government and laws would be completely, 100% secular, and neither reference marriage nor give advantages or disadvantages to people in marriages. However, the cat is already out of the bag, and it's been out of the bag since 1776. Our government was not intended to be 100% secular, and it's impossible for our government to be 100% secular, because it's government by the people. The people will never be 100% secular, themselves. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif So, we will continue to strike a balance based on the societal norms that have grown from the fact that we are a nation built on Judeo-Christian values. It's a social fact.

And this is the crux of the Second Amendment argument.. the far left believes that the 100% secular government is acheivable, and most of the right believes in pure constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we all know where the religious right stands.. just do not confuse them with the average politically right-leaning person.

And as it usually is with American politics, we'll end up somewhere in the middle so both sides can continue to bitch. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

kg_veteran
02-19-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by: vinnieponte
freedom of marriage, thats all I'm saying

The article has nothing at all to do with gay marriage.

But hey, whatever...

dude1394
02-19-2005, 01:23 PM
Hate-crime laws are against our constitution, should be abolished. Feel-good lawmaking.

dude1394
02-19-2005, 01:25 PM
Freedom of marriage(gay that is), freedom of choice (to kill children), freedom of polygamy, freedom of nambla...

Nope, no thanks.

FishForLunch
02-19-2005, 01:26 PM
I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.

dude1394
02-19-2005, 01:43 PM
Well other than it being unnatural sexual congress, there is I believe a specific passage in the old testament.

There is nothing mentioned about beastiality in the ten commandments either. Nor racisim, slavery, etc...

sike
02-19-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.
though this topic has been discussed throughly elsewhere, I do want to comment that, to me, it is sad how the Christian culture (as a whole) treats homosexuals. They(We) tend to be so forgiving of other sinners's sin reaching out to help them with the saving good news of Christ...but there seems to be some kind of invisable line that keeps Christians from reaching out to homosexuals. Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)? I find this hypocrisy unbearable...I have a gay relative, and there is nothing he does that makes him any more unworthy of Christ's grace than I was/am. Sinners are just that: people trapped in sin. Christ came so that those would repent and believe (though all unworthy of it) could receive salvation.

like I said, this has been discussed in great detail elsewhere....but to answer your question, FFL, "why homosexuals are shunned", they should not be...I seriously doubt anyone has ever truely come to Christ, because the Church shunned them into repentance.

capitalcity
02-19-2005, 05:58 PM
NYT/Drudge (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?ei=5065&en=3d3a7b4f99465096&ex=1109480400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=)

Thought this was relevant given the intersection of "true christian values" and the issue of gay marriage.

Bush taped secretly 1998...
Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.

I think it's important to note our President views/viewed at the time -
*homosexuality as sin on par with all other sin
*gay marriage as a 'special right' outside the bounds of what is an implied freedom
*overall his concern with the radical views within his religion and thus his party

It's also important to note our President was hesitant to position himself alongside Dr. James Dobson (the guy who recently led the attack on SpongeBob)... I think this shows W is seeking 'truth' in his everyday walk with Christ, not just a closeminded evangelical who digests & regurgitates the interpretations of others.

* personally i'm wondering if my mother would've changed her votes if she had known his overall motivation regarding the protection of marriage and W's true feelings about Dr. Dobson.

dude1394
02-19-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by: sike

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.
though this topic has been discussed throughly elsewhere, I do want to comment that, to me, it is sad how the Christian culture (as a whole) treats homosexuals. They(We) tend to be so forgiving of other sinners's sin reaching out to help them with the saving good news of Christ...but there seems to be some kind of invisable line that keeps Christians from reaching out to homosexuals. Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)? I find this hypocrisy unbearable...I have a gay relative, and there is nothing he does that makes him any more unworthy of Christ's grace than I was/am. Sinners are just that: people trapped in sin. Christ came so that those would repent and believe (though all unworthy of it) could receive salvation.

like I said, this has been discussed in great detail elsewhere....but to answer your question, FFL, "why homosexuals are shunned", they should not be...I seriously doubt anyone has ever truely come to Christ, because the Church shunned them into repentance.

Actually sike, it' not the sin, it's the lack of asking for forgiveness of that sin. An adulterer would not receive christ if they continued to commit adultery and was not repentent. It's the repentence that is the diff, imo.

sike
02-20-2005, 01:58 AM
you missed my point, dude. I was not speaking to a salvific point, but rather the preception of many Christians as distinguishing between the two. As if they were different sins. One (homosexuality) the being the worse of the two (in perception).

To your point: I certainly agree that a continuing of sin and lack of repentance will keep one from entering into a genuine faith relationship with Christ, that being said, it was simply not my point.

Just so you know, my personal Soteriological conviction is very Biblically conservative.

dude1394
02-20-2005, 02:09 AM
Salvific (holey mackeral) i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif... Point taken....but salvific I'll have to look up.

Then you throw out soteriological..whew...you're going to me me squemish commenting... Well maybe not...

FreshJive
02-23-2005, 03:39 PM
Isn't one reason because that guy offered up his daughters to those rapists who were trying to rape the angels staying in his house? I can see how someone might hear that story and think that homosexuality must be a great atrocity if you're going to toss your daughters to the raping Soddomites to prevent some male on male action from occuring. BTW I always thought that mabye they should have left that one out of the Sunday School lesson plans.

Usually Lurkin
02-23-2005, 05:02 PM
Isn't there biblical precedence for turning someone out (over to Satan) when they refuse to repent? (Paul?)

aha: 1 Cor. 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:20 talk about excommunication.

I think Dude's point is valid, Sike. It's not the homosexuality per se that keeps Christians from reaching out. It's the refusal to admit that homosexuality is a sin (which is more and more common in our society). A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

That's not to say that the unrepentant sinner is without hope, it's just to say that it takes a stronger Christian to witness to someone who is so entrenched in their own sin. There's just not as many Christians that are that strong. Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

Usually Lurkin
02-23-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by: Rhylan

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkinhow do you make the decision who should or should not be able to get married?
Ideally, no one would make the decision, and our government and laws would be completely, 100% secular, and neither reference marriage nor give advantages or disadvantages to people in marriages. . . .
And as it usually is with American politics, we'll end up somewhere in the middle so both sides can continue to bitch. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

A good reply, Rhylan. I agree.
I'm still interested in Vinnie's thoughts, though. The question was directed to him, and I would like to know how he personally rationalizes the location of the line he draws.

FreshJive
02-24-2005, 12:21 AM
The line is drawn there because polygamy, pedophilia, and beastiality are all naturally abusive relationships. Its really a stupid argument (the if you let gays marry what's next? argument), and the rationalization/difference is obvious.

sike
02-24-2005, 02:04 AM
Usually Lurkin

I think Dude's point is valid, Sike. It's not the homosexuality per se that keeps Christians from reaching out.

oh really?
It's the refusal to admit that homosexuality is a sin (which is more and more common in our society).

I agree in ideal and common thought, but in practice, I think its usually that the idea of homosexuality makes most feel far too icky...
A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

this has nothing to do with my post....good point, but an entirely different situation than I mentioned.
it's just to say that it takes a stronger Christian to witness to someone who is so entrenched in their own sin.

it does take a stronger Believer...no matter what the sin
There's just not as many Christians that are that strong.

I'd prefer to use the word "obedient"
Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

they are different callings...one is not higher than the other...prison ministry takes a special cat though to be sure

Usually Lurkin
02-24-2005, 08:40 AM
sikeI agree in ideal and common thought, but in practice, I think its usually that the idea of homosexuality makes most feel far too icky...
Because it's an abnormal sexual behavior, maybe. But is it really more icky than crack addiction, or bestiality, or African missionary work, or Islam? There are people who would flat out refuse participation in any of these areas of potential ministry.

UL: A man who cheats on his wife and repents is behaving differently (and will be treated differently by the church) than a man who cheats on his wife and says God wants him to cheat on his wife.

sike: this has nothing to do with my post....good point, but an entirely different situation than I mentioned.
It's not a different situation. You asked why Christians might treat homosexuality as different. I'm suggesting that homosexuality is very often confounded with an explicit choice to be homosexual. "Homosexuality" in our society is also an organized, anti-church movement with momentum. It's to the point of people saying that God wants them to be that way. Churches are built in which that sin is treated as perfectly acceptable, even a blessing. And that can be scary to confront. You find more willingness to witness when a homosexual walks into a church and says "What I've done is wrong, and I want to repent." I've seen this happen, and have never seen anyone refuse to talk to the person. On the other hand, I have seen dirty, stinking homeless people kicked out of church because no one wanted to deal with them. It's not the sin itself that scares people off. It's the attitude towards God that often accompanies that sin.

I also have a relative who is a homosexual. And there is nothing inherent in me that is more worthy of salvation than anything in him. None of my sin is less of a sin than any of his. The difference is that I repent of my sins and he does not. The bible is quite clear on which of those behaviors is more pleasing to God.

Here's my question to you (and it's an honest question): If my homosexual relative asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?


UL: There's just not as many Christians that are that strong.

sikeI'd prefer to use the word "obedient"
or "faithful" or "mature", but the point is the same. Fewer people are willing to witness to homosexuals than are not willing. But the same is true for every difficult area of ministry.

Its the same reason there aren't as many prison ministers as there are pew ministers.

they are different callings...one is not higher than the other...prison ministry takes a special cat though to be sure
Not higher, but one is definitely easier.

MavKikiNYC
02-24-2005, 08:55 AM
An interesting discussion going on here, to be sure. Not necessarily an encouraging one.

There have been some rather definite opinions expressed here about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, by posters whose religious perspectives could fairly be decribed conservative, evangelical, and/or fundamentalist.

It might be interesting (and revealing) to hear what those same posters' perpectives are on religious bigotry, religious intolerance, spiritual coercion and theological extortion. Does their understanding of Christainity allow that all of those acts would be considered sins? Does their reading of the Bible suggest that any of those acts would be sinful, or does their interpretaion of the Bible compel them to impose their religious persepctive on anyone who doesn't believe as they do, and compel all people to live as they live their own lives?

What (if anything) do C-E-Fs derive from the Bible about religious bigotry? (Siderbar: I once sat uncomfortably through a Sunday evening "Training Union" session, while one of the most educated Baptist pastors I ever knew opined that not only would Jews fail to receive salvation, but Catholics as well---this with two Catholic guests in attendance. Insensitive and misguided at best, callous and sinfully hurtful at worst.)

Would a religious bigot be required to ask forgiveness from those whom he/she had condemned unfairly in order to be forgiven?

What if a religious bigot persisted in his/her bigoted beliefs, opinions and behaviors, refusing to acknowledge the sinfulness of his/her actions, and the hurtfulness that his/her words had inflicted upon others?

What if a religious bigot not only persisted in his/her bigoted beliefs, but took scripture out of context in order to justify his/her beliefs; interpreted scripture selectively; and ignored scripture that conflicted with his/her own justification(s) for believing as he/she did?

What if a religious bigot spent more time condeming the perceived "sin" and imperfections of others, rather than trying themselves to live a more Christian, more loving, more tolerant life, and trying to improve his/her own spiritual imperfections?

And what about other Christians (of whatever sexual persuasion) who do not believe as the C-E-Fs? Do the C-E-Fs regard their acceptance of homosexuality as sinful?

And how should more thoughtful believers regard the religious bigot who smugly and superciliously spouts his/her scriptural distortions chapter- and-verse, cloaking his/her own bigoted beliefs and idiosyncratic theological persectives in a self-justifying, self-righteous (but scriptuarlly-based) maquillage of intolerance and condemnation for others?

So many questions raised.......

MavKikiNYC
02-24-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by: Rhylan

Originally posted by:

Alright, sick of hearing about this topic..... guess what folks.. marriage is not a right. Equal protection shouldn't apply. Benefits for married couples are inherently arbitrary, and as a result, I don't see how you can impose the 'equal rights' argument, without having to extend it to single people and polygamists!

One of the biggest arguments on the side of gay marriage is the spousal benefits argument.. which really is pretty valid in a lot of ways. I support civil unions, personally. But even so, let's say my buddy and I are both self employed.. say he's an electrician, and I'm a plumber.

Let's say my wife works for a company that provides health benefits, and he's not married. I get to insure myself based on spousal benefits from my wife's job, and he has to have a personal policy. Now, how is that fair? What if he wants to be married but women can't stand him? That is no more a choice that he can control than is the argument from gay people that they can't help who they love. My electrician buddy can't help who DOESN'T love him!

get it?

Seems to me that the concept of benefits for married couples is neither fair nor equal.. the fact that the benefits even exist is a product of our prevailing culture.. a Judeo-Christian one, by the way.

Just an outside the box thought.

edit, 'cause I'm hooked on phonics.

vinnieponteThey have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it.

Vinnie, my point is this - maybe you CAN pass a law restricting marriage, since it's not an inherent human right, as "proven" by my previous statements. If marriage is a right, then where's my wife?

If you go so far as to say that it's not an individual's right to be married, but it is a couple's right to get married, then I can see the logic. However, if "all committed, loving couples should be treated equally," as capitalcity said, then what prevents me and Jane from getting married.. followed soon after by me and Suzy getting married.. followed soon after by Jane and Suzy getting married. And there, my friend, you have polygamy, which is against the law, and nobody's crying for it.

So, the line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously. Even those of you who fully support gay marriage and not just civil unions are drawing a line at being in multiple marriages at one time. And that proves my point - marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege. It's a social institution that is purely cultural and/or religious in nature. The only reason marriage has any place in our government/employment/etc is because it is such a primary part of our culture and/or religion, and as such, the prevailing beliefs of our culture and/or religion will continue to legally define it.

And the prevailing beliefs of American culture say that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman. Like it or not. Again, I think we ought to allow civil unions so that gay couples can have the same institutional advantages as married couples. However, I don't expect the societal definition of "marriage" to change any time soon, because the prominence of marriage in America is rooted in our "socio-cultur-religious" beliefs, which generally do not accept same sex marriages.


Rhylan, these essays are some of the most disappointing scholarship to come out of B-CS since......well, since Rudy Woods. Are they just giving those Aggie Certificates away now?

It's almost easier to deny the existence of any "human right" altogether than it is to try to argue that "marriage" isn't among them.

And while I can't tell if you're just pulling Vinicia's chain....or whatever (always a worthwhile passtime, by the way) your example isn't refuting the right to marry---rather, the right to be insured (and facetiously, the right to a wife of your choice).

In fact, I think your whole premise has things backwards, because while some people are willing to argue that health insurance should be a civil right (or entitlement at least) as well, I don't see that many people willing to put restrictions on the rights of people to marry (and divorce), EXCEPT in the case of same-sex marriages.

The notion of human rights has been increasing and expanding over the last 230-something years, not contracting. Likewise, the institution of marriage (from a strictly legal perspective) has evolved to a far more liberal standard as to the mechanics of gaining legal recognition of a marital contract (or the dissolution thereof), EXCEPT (once again) in the case of same-sex marriages.

Rhylan
02-24-2005, 09:46 AM
Kiki, all I'm really saying here is the following:

1 - marriage in America is a vastly non-secular institution
2 - recognizing marriage in our mostly secular government introduces natural conflicts, but we've already done it, so we have to draw the line somewhere
3 - because of these conditions, the line will continue to be drawn in a place that reflects the cultural and religious background of the vast majority of Americans.

I just don't think you can call something a human right when it's existence is contingent upon the behavior of another human. If marriage is a human right, then how far away are we from seeing all single women marching in the street, saying that their human rights are being infringed upon by the single men who refuse to marry them?

Usually Lurkin
02-24-2005, 09:46 AM
Mavkiki-
You need to be more specific about what you mean by religious bigotry.

No self-respecting C-E-F (labels are just great) would pretend to be the judge of who gets in or out of heaven, they might only report what they read in the bible about who God lets in or out (and the bible is quite clear that acceptance of Jesus's gift is key). It would of course, but a terrible thing to misrepresent what is in the bible.

If you mean actually treating people poorly based on their religious views (like not helping them out of a hole, or tending to their wounds (spiritual or otherwise)) based on their religious views, again, no self-respecting C-E-F would pretend that that was ok. The bible is quite clear that our loving actions should apply to all.

I'd like to discuss the issues you raised, but still need to know what you mean by religious bigotry.

sike
02-24-2005, 11:59 AM
UL: Because it's an abnormal sexual behavior, maybe. But is it really more icky than crack addiction, or bestiality, or African missionary work, or Islam? There are people who would flat out refuse participation in any of these areas of potential ministry.
as for beastiality (very rare in our culture....all kinds of Southern jokes come to mind i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif ), I have personally never dealt with it, but all the others I have on many occassions...Just because there may be Christians who shy away from ministry to certain other groups does not make the point about Christians treating homosexuals differently moot. You know this. All you have done, is point out other areas of possible ministry where many Christians are weak. Of course in God's eyes it no more "icky", (I assume this is a rhetorical comment) but to your average American pew-sitter, Homosexuality is a taboo sin they are not going to deal with.....they will judge it, but rarely extend a loving hand.


It's not a different situation.
To be fair to you, UL, let me explain why the situation you set up IS true, but not truely my situation. If you will go read my original post, which I'm sure you have,
Sike: Why should a man who cheats on his wife (a sexual sin) be more likely to receive Christ than a man or woman trapped in homosexuality (a sexual sin)?
My scenario treats both sinners on an equal scale of sin....neither has been said to be willing to repent, whereas in your thought, the adulterer is willing and the homosexual is not. I do find it a bit odd that you chose to attribute willingness to repent to only the adulterer and not the homosexual in your scenario. So there is an obvious difference between the two scenarios.
you have set up a strawman against me, which I'm sure was not intentional. I just found it strange that you would add to my original scenario and then comment on it like it was what I had originally said. No sweat, like I said, I think you and I are likely to agree on most, if not all, of this topic....

Here's my question to you (and it's an honest question): If my homosexual relative asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?
I can answer this by posing a question to you: If my relative who habitually cheats on his wife asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?
You'll find your anwer depending on how you answer this question. Also, I'm assuming by "repent", you have in mind the Biblical meaning of "turning away". Some use the word repent to mean simply an admission of guilt.


or "faithful" or "mature", but the point is the same. Fewer people are willing to witness to homosexuals than are not willing. But the same is true for every difficult area of ministry.
I'll agree to the word "faithfull" but not to "mature". Faithfulness has to do with one's obedience to God's word/will, maturity has to do depth of relationship and insight....Whereas one who is spiritually mature will be or have faithfullness or obedience, the less spiritually mature believer is still called to the same obedience even though they have less time spent with God.....this is really off topic though.

Not higher, but one is definitely easier.
this makes me think you are a prison Chaplin of some type...
the two are certainly different callings...I think we discredit both by saying one is harder than the other. Which is harder being a nose or an ear? Different callings in the body of Christ are just that: different. And God appoints and gifts people differently so as to meet their personal ministries. I have known several full time Prison ministers and few of them would make good pastors...the same could be said with your average pastor as a prison minister. I personally think that rightly filling the pastorate at a local church (go read the check lists in 1 Timothy and Titus) and shepherding righteously is one of the more difficult callings a man could receive.

for the most part, UL, I think we are saying the same things...

FreshJive
02-24-2005, 02:25 PM
Alright, I have some questions out of curiosity: If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway? Let's say someone really believes that they are meant to be gay, and they meet a person who they believe is a blessing or gift to them from God. This person then chooses to live the rest of thier lives as a gay person in what they believe to be a fully legit and sanctioned relationship, because they interpret scripture in a different manner than how someone like UL interprets scripture. Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away? Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one? Why do Evangelicals care so much about this one issue as to back political legislation against it? Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning, or do they think that society will fail if the government condones sin? Which one is the basis? I truly am not trying to troll. Just trying to figure out the point of view.

Usually Lurkin
02-24-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by: sike
to your average American pew-sitter, Homosexuality is a taboo sin they are not going to deal with.....they will judge it, but rarely extend a loving hand.
I think this is the root of our differences. It just has not been my experience. Iíve seen far less bigotry against homosexuals in church than I have in general society, say, public school or lockerrooms. Following Christ reduces this bigotry. As I mentioned, I have unfortunately seen in church the treatment of other people as too taboo to touch (sounds like a Hammer song, huh?) but not homosexuals.


My scenario treats both sinners on an equal scale of sin....neither has been said to be willing to repent, whereas in your thought, the adulterer is willing and the homosexual is not.
Then your question was a straw man. I donít know anyone who would say that the adulterer is more likely to receive salvation if both refuse to repent (or if both do repent). I have met people who say the homosexual does not need to repent.


I do find it a bit odd that you chose to attribute willingness to repent to only the adulterer and not the homosexual in your scenario.
I thought you assumed that in your example. 1) I donít know why else anyone would treat the two differently. And 2) itís more common in our society for homosexuality to be treated as a repentance free behavior (there are no adulterer-activists groups, no political parallel to the log-cabin republicans, no parades, etc.)


If my relative who habitually cheats on his wife asks Jesus to save him, but does not repent of his sexual sin, can he be forgiven? Is he saved?
Iíd say no. But I donít know if everyone would say no. And thereís a lot of implications about my ďnoĒ answer that Iím pretty unsure about. Thatís why I asked you. You sound like youíve read a lot of theology (well, enough to use the word salvific i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif ). Habitual adulterers like you describe are ďickyĒ.

The admission of guilt is pretty key as far as approachability goes. Itís a first step to repentence. The sense of conviction and the understanding of the need for forgiveness provide common ground for discussing Christianity. All adulterers I know, even if unwilling to repent, understand that they are doing something wrong (they might just accept the consequences or try to avoid them).



Not higher, but one is definitely easier.
this makes me think you are a prison Chaplin of some type...
Goodness, not at all. Iíve spoken to more homosexuals than prisoners (though only a few of either). Prisoners scare me. Illogical and unfair, but I clam up and have no idea what to say when Iím talking to someone I know was in jail.
By ďpew ministryĒ I meant sitting in one. That is a necessary function in the church that many people fill quite well. But it is easier in some sense than doing anything more active. In this sense, I'm much closer to being a "pew minister" than either pastor or prison minister.

Usually Lurkin
02-24-2005, 03:24 PM
Good questions, FreshJive. I don't mean to dominate the thread, but I've got some time off and it's just really interesting to me. Hopefully we can get more perspectives.
I ask these questions of myself and God all the time. Here's how I've come to answer them (though I'm still asking).

If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway?
I don't think they'd be held responsible if they didn't know, but God will, in one way or another, let you know.

Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away?
Maybe not to the point of driving them away, but if someone would rather leave Christ than be reminded of their own sin, then that's their choice.

Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one?
no, because all the law is valid.

These next couple are hard. It might help if you mentioned specific legislation.
Why do Evangelicals care so much about this one issue as to back political legislation against it?
well, there's also movements to pass legislation against abortion, and against adultery, pornography, drinking and driving (or just drinking), etc. so it's not an isolated issue in this regard.

Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning, or do they think that society will fail if the government condones sin?
yes. and yes. The first reason probably has little to do with legislation, but more with reminding them of the need for repentance. The second has to do with both secular reasons (belief that homosexual marriage is less stable, less healthy, etc.) and spiritual reasons (like God will be angry with us), so probably provides the foundation for political will.

sike
02-24-2005, 05:13 PM
I think this is the root of our differences. It just has not been my experience. Iíve seen far less bigotry against homosexuals in church than I have in general society
Bro, I am not talking about "general society"(maybe we are talking about different things i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif )....I would hope there is less bigotry in the "saved" church than in "lost" society. I don't think most Christians's feelings about Homosexuality is intentionaly mean or hard hearted, I do however (and I hope by now I've made this clear) believe that most Christians treat homosexuality has a "different" sin. One they are (understandably) unconfortable with. I do find it saddening that there is less of a corporate commitment to reach homosexuals with the Gospel by the church....that is my point.

Then your question was a straw man. I donít know anyone who would say that the adulterer is more likely to receive salvation if both refuse to repent (or if both do repent).
no, my question is perfectly valid. It is based upon the idea that both adultery and homosexuality are sins of the flesh...both sins needing forgivness.

I have met people who say the homosexual does not need to repent
once again I think we may have found our area of confusion. I am not such a person. Though I hope to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect (the same dignity and respect I hope to show all men and women) I do find it Biblically to be a sin.

I thought you assumed that in your example. 1) I donít know why else anyone would treat the two differently. And 2) itís more common in our society for homosexuality to be treated as a repentance free behavior
I hope I've cleared up the confusion on this i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Iíd say no. But I donít know if everyone would say no.
If you want to further discuss this in PM, I would be glad to...at least you are thinking about such things...most never do

You sound like youíve read a lot of theology (well, enough to use the word salvific ).
yeah, they teach that kind of stuff so that you sound like you know what you're talking about i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Habitual adulterers like you describe are ďickyĒ.
and you'll find them in churches every Sunday...pretending like no ONE (notice the capital letters) knows

Prisoners scare me. Illogical and unfair, but I clam up and have no idea what to say when Iím talking to someone I know was in jail.
An honest man. Don't watch Oz reruns i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif ....but really I have found that (much like working with the homeless) they just want to be treated like people.

as I've said multiple times now, UL, (I think all this is mostly caused by lack of detail in our posts and the other guy making assumptions)...I think we agree. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

sike
02-24-2005, 06:04 PM
Great questions, Jive...(a very underrated poster!....when are the next Sikeys?)
By the way...great thoughts from UL on these questions
I personally hate politics, so I'll stay with the more theological questions....don't judge me too harshly i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

If someone is not aware that they are sinning, but are otherwise repentful Christians, do Christians believe that they are forgiven for it by God anyway?
this is a thought that has been largely forgotten by modern (more likey, just ignored) theologians, but the Church Fathers addressed it often. In their search for piety, they constantly prayed that they would not commit unknown sins but that if they did that they would be forgiven them....I personally think that it is part of the function of the Holy Spirit to bring and sustain conviction in the heart of the believer(not in the lost man or woman though), so that if we participate in something that fails to meet the "glory of God" we are brought to conviction over it. Now let me say that I think that one must be dedicated to living a Godly life to be "tuned in" to the Spirit of God...so if one is at a point in their life where their commitment is wishy washy at best...they may fail to come to repentance they way they should

Let's say someone really believes that they are meant to be gay, and they meet a person who they believe is a blessing or gift to them from God. This person then chooses to live the rest of thier lives as a gay person in what they believe to be a fully legit and sanctioned relationship, because they interpret scripture in a different manner than how someone like UL interprets scripture.
With all the talk about interpretation going around this world (especially in theological circles) I have come to the conclusion that UL's interpretation doesn't matter any more than sike's interpretaion any more than Richard Simmons's interpretation any more than Jive's interpretation.....it all comes down to the simple and deciding point of "WHAT IS GOD's TRUE INTENT?" All I can say to this point, Jive, is my own opinion of God's opinion. You will of course have to make up your own mind as to which you believe is God's...To answer your question though, I BELIEVE that the Bible deals with homosexuality in clear and concise detail. I believe that Biblically it is a sin...not an unforgivable sin, but rather a sin of the flesh and unnatural at that. I believe that in the situation you presented, the person who believes themselves to be a Christian (a follower of Christ and his word) and at the same time continually (this is key) embraces the homosexual lifestyle has come to believe a lie. Notice what I did not say, I did not say that they are bad people, mean people, or overly evil people....in fact they may be very moral in every other part of their life. But because of my understanding of Scripture, I see the embracing of homosexuality and indwelling of the Spirit of God as contrary to one another.

Should that person be constantly reminded by the church that their lifestyle is sinful even though it may drive them away?
If Christians who say homosexuality is a sin are correct in their interpretation of God's word (myself as one), then reminding that person of their sin is actually the most loving thing they could do. But as a pastor, there will eventually come a time where if the person in question does not show genuine repentance of the sin, he or she should be asked to leave. But I would say this about many sins, not simply homosexuality. I won't bore you with a list i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Couldn't the rest of the church members just agree to split hairs on that one?
To the church(most churches anyway), it is not a "splitting hair" issue. And like I mentioned, to ignore it would be the most unloving thing they could do...because they would be lying to the person in question and at the same time be rejecting God's word.

Do they fear that these people will go to hell if they aren't reminded that they are sinning
They (we) believe they will go to Hell for not truely accepting Christ...the same fate of any (not merely homosexuals) who reject him...which is more loving, to ignore it or to confront it? As far as the politics, I'm staying away from that i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

As I stated before...I see Homosexuality as just another sin that men/women need the power of Christ to be delivered from...though it was never an issue for me, I certainly had plenty of sins that God has and still is in process of removing from my life.
I hope to treat them just as anyone else...with the love of Jesus.

Usually Lurkin
02-24-2005, 06:16 PM
I would hope there is less bigotry in the "saved" church than in "lost" society. I don't think most Christians's feelings about Homosexuality is intentionaly mean or hard hearted,
The important question to me is, what is it that the church is doing that reduces the level of bigotry among its members? We could maybe do more of it.


once again I think we may have found our area of confusion. I am not such a person. Though I hope to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect (the same dignity and respect I hope to show all men and women) I do find it Biblically to be a sin.
I didn't mean to suggest that you would be. I meant to suggest that you are more willing to find such a person in the world than you would be to find someone suggesting the adulterer does not need to repent, and that this difference has an influence on how one deals with people involved in homosexuality or adultery.


and you'll find them in churches every Sunday...pretending like no ONE (notice the capital letters) knows
right. and habitual gamblers, pornographers, alcoholics, and sinners of all sorts. And they stay there willing to be lectured to about the nature of their own sins.
I think unrepentent homosexuals, though, are more willing to leave a church that says homosexuality is a sin, and join one that does not. This makes it more intimidating to reach out to them. Society is building for them not only a rationality that excuses the behavior, but one that explains the behavior as a gift from God. Reaching out to that - to someone who has already decided they don't even want to listen, is hard.

I think you are right - that homosexuality is often treated differently by Christians for other reasons. Those probably have something to do with a lack of identification with the temptation, an influence by bigotry in society, the fact that even holy sexuality is often a taboo topic in church, and other reasons. It might not be as pervasive as the "Christian culture", though. It sounds like yourself, and the few churches that I've learned from, and even George Bush are examples of the opposite (perhaps these are exceptions, though).


as I've said multiple times now, UL, (I think all this is mostly caused by lack of detail in our posts and the other guy making assumptions)...I think we agree. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif
I think so, too. I've been approaching this discussion with the idea of surfacing those issues that keep churches from reaching out to homosexuals, focusing on the changing view of homosexuality in our society. The refusal to admit to sin is a very tricky subject, and conversations concerning homosexuality often deal with it, and it often places an impassable wall between people otherwise willing to share in Christ. This has been a good discussion for exploring those issues. It'd be nice to be able to avoid the wall without ceding any of what God has given to us.

sike
02-24-2005, 06:36 PM
great post UL i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Chiwas
02-24-2005, 09:16 PM
Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's.

But give to God, what is God's.
Use it and you will find answers for this topic, I think.

FreshJive
02-25-2005, 03:44 AM
Thanks for the responses UL and Sike. I think I can see more clearly where you are coming from. I just don't get why a certain sin is worth giving up on someone's soul. If humans are doomed to sin then they will never completely stop sinning, and they are likely to keep repeating the same sins thier entire lives because humans are creatures of habit. So by your logic everyone will fail to acheive salvation because they will never prove to truly be sorry for all the sins they commit, because even if they stop smoking crack they will replace that sin with new ones.

Also, if someone really has convinced themselves that they are supposed to be gay then no matter how much they are commited to serving God they may never make the logical connection that God doesn't want them to be gay. You must have colleagues that disagree with your interpretations of scripture on any number of subjects. If someone is around other likeminded dedicated Chrisatians then they may never actually get God's message that thier behavior is indeed wrong even though they are truly trying to glorify him. If God really thinks homosexuality is a sin, then there will be Christians that do not understand this because humans cannot possibly get everything right. This is all assuming that homosexuality is indeed a sin of course, but you also must at least entertain the thought that you may have it wrong about this one. I grew up in a Baptist church and there was always some kind of crazy infighting and disturbing views about the outside world over some silly things IMO. My parents were/are more dedicated to thier religion than anyone and even they had to roll thier eyes when our pator passed out flyers calling for a boycott of Disney and the like.

Sorry if this reply is weak. I'll give your answers more thought later. I'm thinking about KVH right now (in a most hetero way).

dalmations202
03-08-2005, 09:38 PM
I have a question, I am not a christian so I would like to know why homosexuals are shunned even though there is nothing mentioned about it in the 10 Commandments.

I guess I have to put my 2 cents worth in here. I am a Bible believing Christian.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 18:23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Lev 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deu 22:5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

Pro 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to Jehovah.

Rev 21:27 and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or <u>he that maketh an abomination</u> and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb's book of life.


Why are they shunned by Christians? Because the Bible says it is abomination. It is included in the 10 commandments here:
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

As I have matured as a Christian, I have come to realize that it is not the gay people, but the SIN that is hated. If they are sinning (and we all do every day), then we need to repent. We need to change our ways, and get back in line with God, and develop the relationship with him. It is impossible to grow closer to God, and his ways, if we do not repent. Salvation is through Jesus Christ who died for our sins. If we do not ask for him to come into our lives, and intervene with God on our behalf, then we will be condemned to an eternity w/o God.

Why did God turn his back on Jesus, when he was on the cross. Answer - because Sin was poured out on him. When we sin, we can ask forgiveness and change our ways. If you believe that you were born to be gay- and do not change yourself, then you have no repentance.
Subsequently you have no repentance, you cannot get into heaven.

If two people want to live together in sin (either male-male or female-female) and this country wants to give them special rights as a couple, then so be it. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. But, if they want to call it marriage then I have a problem, because marriage is defined in the Bible. (I won't take the time to make the argument here, but this also can include male-female living in sin).

Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:31 <u> And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.</u> And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
Gen 2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, <u>and shall cleave unto his wife</u>: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; <u>and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. </u>



So, God made man and woman. He blessed "them". He put into a man the idea of leaving his family for a WIFE so they could be one flesh. He made a womans desire to be to thy husband.

Any thing going against this is wrong and SINFUL. No matter how man tries to justify it. He says in Pro 17:15 don't try to justify the wicked. Pray for the wicked. Try to help the wicked see that they are sinners, and need to repent. Help all you can, but do not justify what the wicked are doing, and call it OK.

So, no I cannot justify this. It is still wrong, no matter who thinks it is right. I guess it comes down to either the Bible and God are "Right" or man and is ideas are "right". I'll stand with God over public opinion every time.